 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Missoula v. Cook12/3/2001
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula, The Honorable Douglas G. Harkin, Judge presiding.
Submitted on Briefs: April 12, 2001
Bradley A. Cook (Cook) appeals from the order entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, upholding the order of the Municipal Court for the City of Missoula which denied his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in determining that the Municipal Court correctly denied Cook's motion to suppress.
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 1999, Missoula City Police Officer Ken Guy (Guy) initiated an investigative stop of a vehicle based on his belief that the driver was impaired. The investigative stop culminated in the driver--identified as Cook--being arrested and charged by complaint in the Municipal Court with the offenses of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more (DUI per se). Cook subsequently moved the Municipal Court to suppress all evidence acquired during the investigative stop, arguing that the stop was not justified by a particularized suspicion that an offense was being committed. Following a hearing, the Municipal Court denied the motion. Cook then pleaded guilty to the offense of DUI per se pursuant to a plea agreement in which he reserved his right to appeal the Municipal Court's denial of his motion to suppress.
Cook appealed to the District Court. The court subsequently entered its order and memorandum in which it concluded that Guy had a sufficient particularized suspicion that a crime was being committed to justify his investigative stop of Cook's vehicle and upheld the Municipal Court's order denying the motion to suppress. Cook appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, this Court reviews factual findings to determine whether they are clearly erroneous and conclusions of law to determine whether they are correct." State v. Halvorson, 2000 MT 56, 9, 299 Mont. 1, 9, 997 P.2d 751, 9.
DISCUSSION
Did the District Court err in determining that the Municipal Court correctly denied Cook's motion to suppress?
The District Court upheld the Municipal Court's denial of Cook's motion to suppress based on its conclusion that Guy's investigative stop of Cook's vehicle was justified by a particularized suspicion that an offense was being committed. Cook asserts that the District Court's conclusion is erroneous.
Section 46-5-401, MCA, provides that
n order to obtain or verify an account of the person's presence or conduct or to determine whether to arrest the person, a peace officer may stop any person or vehicle that is observed in circumstances that create a particularized suspicion that the person or occupant of the vehicle has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.
Thus, an investigative stop must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is committing, has committed or is about to commit an offense. Anderson v. State Dept. of Justice (1996), 275 Mont. 259, 263, 912 P.2d 212, 214. We have adopted a two-part test to determine whether an investigative stop was justified by sufficient particularized suspicion. First, the prosecution is required to show objective data from which an experienced officer could make certain inferences. Second, the prosecution must show a resulting suspicion that the occupant of the vehicle in question is or has been engaged in wrongdoing. Anderson, 275 Mont. at 263, 912 P.
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|